• Sign up or login, and you'll have full access to opportunities of forum.

Milestones

Go to CruxDreams.com
old slave said:
With apologies to our worthy German friends, a short return to the "Nasty Nazis" theme.

April 23, 1945, 75 years ago today, Heinrich Himmler Reichsführer-SS , committed suicide after being arrested by British forces.
Click to expand...
Coincidence, on the same 23th of May, the British dissolved the still ruling German government, lead by Hitler's successor, Admiral Dönitz, and arrested all its members. From now on, Germany was entirely under the authority of the four occupational forces.
 
Frank Petrexa said:
Stand up yah voracious man-eatin' sonofabitch and receive yir sintince. When yah came to Hinsdale County, there was siven Dimmycrats. But you, yah et five of 'em, goddam yah. I sintince yah t' be hanged by th' neck ontil yer dead, dead, dead, as a warnin' ag'in reducin' th' Dimmycratic populayshun of this county. Packer, you Republican cannibal, I would sintince ya ta hell but the statutes forbid it.
Click to expand...
Hmm I've been aware of the tactics of 'voter suppression' but not of 'voter ingestion' ...
 
May 24th to 28th. Possibly the most important five days in WW2!
The days from May 24 to May 28, 1940 altered the course of the history of this century, as the members of the British War Cabinet debated whether to negotiate with Hitler or to continue what became known as the Second World War. The decisive importance of these five days is the focus of John Lukacs’s magisterial new book.

Lukacs takes us hour by hour into the critical unfolding of events at 10 Downing Street, where Churchill and the members of his cabinet were painfully considering their war responsibilities. We see how the military disasters taking place on the Continent—particularly the plight of the nearly 400,000 British soldiers bottled up in Dunkirk—affected Churchill’s fragile political situation, for he had been prime minister only a fortnight and was regarded as impetuous and hotheaded even by many of his own party. Lukacs also investigates the mood of the British people, drawing on newspaper and Mass-Observation reports that show how the citizenry, though only partly informed about the dangers that faced them, nevertheless began to support Churchill’s determination to stand fast.
Click to expand...

Without Churchill, someone could have been PM who would negotiate with Hitler. And with a pliant Europe behind him American isolation would be intact and Russia on its own with the German army free to concentrate against them.
Hitler still had the winning of the war, but it was no longer HIS war!
 
Gibbs505 said:
May 24th to 28th. Possibly the most important five days in WW2!


Without Churchill, someone could have been PM who would negotiate with Hitler. And with a pliant Europe behind him American isolation would be intact and Russia on its own with the German army free to concentrate against them.
Hitler still had the winning of the war, but it was no longer HIS war!
Click to expand...
The US was isolated but nevertheless in a developing conflict with Japan over the Pacific. Sooner or later, Britain would be drawn back into the war, because Japan also targeted its interests there. Britains interests in the Mediterranean would be intact, ans still a treat for stirring unrest in the Balkans. With or without Britain in the war, Hitler would have his hands free to invade Russia (like he did, when Britain stood alone in 1941), but there was no guarantee for success, and with Britain back in the war, his ally Japan in the war could be rather a cause of problems than a help.
 
Loxuru said:
The US was isolated but nevertheless in a developing conflict with Japan over the Pacific. Sooner or later, Britain would be drawn back into the war, because Japan also targeted its interests there. Britains interests in the Mediterranean would be intact, ans still a treat for stirring unrest in the Balkans. With or without Britain in the war, Hitler would have his hands free to invade Russia (like he did, when Britain stood alone in 1941), but there was no guarantee for success, and with Britain back in the war, his ally Japan in the war could be rather a cause of problems than a help.
Click to expand...
You are assuming that some one like Churchill standing up for British interests. But with at least a armistice and possibly the British fleet in German hands, we have an entirely different scenario. British interests would be subordinated to German one. It would be an entirely different set of circumstances. The only reason Greece stood up to Italy was a British promise of help, plus the royal navy was kicking the snot out of the Italian one.
Japan, yes, that could be interesting.
AS to Russia, with a quiescent England, Germany would be able to reduce its forces stationed in both Europe and Norway and thus put possibly two more armies into the attack on Russia. That might have made the difference, along with an earlier start because the Balkans would be quiet.
 
Gibbs505 said:
AS to Russia, with a quiescent England, Germany would be able to reduce its forces stationed in both Europe and Norway and thus put possibly two more armies into the attack on Russia. That might have made the difference, along with an earlier start because the Balkans would be quiet.
Click to expand...

Hitler’s vacillating strategies would have still been a problem, though, don’t you think. As I understand it from a history course I took, the Germans failed miserably when it came to good intelligence work and identifying clear war-winning objectives.
 
Gibbs505 said:
You are assuming that some one like Churchill standing up for British interests. But with at least a armistice and possibly the British fleet in German hands, we have an entirely different scenario. British interests would be subordinated to German one. It would be an entirely different set of circumstances. The only reason Greece stood up to Italy was a British promise of help, plus the royal navy was kicking the snot out of the Italian one.
Japan, yes, that could be interesting.
AS to Russia, with a quiescent England, Germany would be able to reduce its forces stationed in both Europe and Norway and thus put possibly two more armies into the attack on Russia. That might have made the difference, along with an earlier start because the Balkans would be quiet.
Click to expand...

Hum

The original British plan for the evacuation anticipated only cadres to be recovered from the BEF, a figure of 40,000 troops was commonly bandied about. In addition there were some 3-5 divisions in various states of combat readiness and equipment for 12-20 as well as some half a million men training for the Army alone...not counting further reinforcements arriving from the Dominions.

Then we can look at the situation of the Marine National post the Armistice in France, if the Germans were unable to coerce the French into surrendering more than limited number of units of their navy with their metropolitan heartlands occupied it would require a very low opinion of British negotiators to see them hand over theirs with the ability to inflict an ongoing blockade of the continent (an ability further enhanced by the occupations of countries like Norway whose merchant marines transferred to British control).

Then we have the fact that given the constitutional requirements for the selection of the Prime Minster of the UK the fact that maverick Churchill was chosen indicates that the British establishment was making their judgement based on someone like Churchill as their criteria.

Finally there is the atrocious state of German logistics that was barely adequate to support the forces that were sent into Russia, the number of trucks halved by the winter there were heavy losses among the horses besides and only the latter could be made somewhat good.

All in whole when Hitler rolled the dice for war he was trapped in precisely the impossible position Ludwig Beck had predicted for him.
 
Gibbs505 said:
May 24th to 28th. Possibly the most important five days in WW2!


Without Churchill, someone could have been PM who would negotiate with Hitler. And with a pliant Europe behind him American isolation would be intact and Russia on its own with the German army free to concentrate against them.
Hitler still had the winning of the war, but it was no longer HIS war!
Click to expand...
I think Lend Lease was crucial to the Russian war effort, whatever the Russians say. This required an American commitment and Japanese neutrality in the German-Russian war in order for Russian ships to carry in the cargoes. It is very clear that Hitler intended to attack Russia, and would have done so no matter who else he was at war with.
It is also noteworthy that Japan and Russia had fought in 1938 over Mongolia, and that Soviet troops were tied down until 1942 in the Far East. It was the American drive in the Pacific that reduced the Japanese threat to Russia. One can ask how effective Japan would have been against the Red Army, but the "beyond the Urals" strategy would probably not have been so effective for Stalin.
 
Gibbs505 said:
You are assuming that some one like Churchill standing up for British interests. But with at least a armistice and possibly the British fleet in German hands, we have an entirely different scenario. British interests would be subordinated to German one. It would be an entirely different set of circumstances. The only reason Greece stood up to Italy was a British promise of help, plus the royal navy was kicking the snot out of the Italian one.
Japan, yes, that could be interesting.
AS to Russia, with a quiescent England, Germany would be able to reduce its forces stationed in both Europe and Norway and thus put possibly two more armies into the attack on Russia. That might have made the difference, along with an earlier start because the Balkans would be quiet.
Click to expand...
An armistice is not a surrender. Three weeks later, France, although its army was shattered and its government powerless, managed to keep its fleet and colonies out of the armistice with Hitler. Britain still had an acting government, no German had set foot on its territory. Even without Churchill, London must have been capable enough to bargain at least the same as France in an armistice. With the colonies and fleet intact, Hitler would never be fully sure (and he had no means to enforce the seizure of the British fleet and colonies). Britain could gain time, then.
 
RacingRodent said:
Hum

The original British plan for the evacuation anticipated only cadres to be recovered from the BEF, a figure of 40,000 troops was commonly bandied about. In addition there were some 3-5 divisions in various states of combat readiness and equipment for 12-20 as well as some half a million men training for the Army alone...not counting further reinforcements arriving from the Dominions.

Then we can look at the situation of the Marine National post the Armistice in France, if the Germans were unable to coerce the French into surrendering more than limited number of units of their navy with their metropolitan heartlands occupied it would require a very low opinion of British negotiators to see them hand over theirs with the ability to inflict an ongoing blockade of the continent (an ability further enhanced by the occupations of countries like Norway whose merchant marines transferred to British control).

Then we have the fact that given the constitutional requirements for the selection of the Prime Minster of the UK the fact that maverick Churchill was chosen indicates that the British establishment was making their judgement based on someone like Churchill as their criteria.

Finally there is the atrocious state of German logistics that was barely adequate to support the forces that were sent into Russia, the number of trucks halved by the winter there were heavy losses among the horses besides and only the latter could be made somewhat good.

All in whole when Hitler rolled the dice for war he was trapped in precisely the impossible position Ludwig Beck had predicted for him.
Click to expand...
Loxuru said:
An armistice is not a surrender. Three weeks later, France, although its army was shattered and its government powerless, managed to keep its fleet and colonies out of the armistice with Hitler. Britain still had an acting government, no German had set foot on its territory. Even without Churchill, London must have been capable enough to bargain at least the same as France in an armistice. With the colonies and fleet intact, Hitler would never be fully sure (and he had no means to enforce the seizure of the British fleet and colonies). Britain could gain time, then.
Click to expand...
Frank Petrexa said:
I think Lend Lease was crucial to the Russian war effort, whatever the Russians say. This required an American commitment and Japanese neutrality in the German-Russian war in order for Russian ships to carry in the cargoes. It is very clear that Hitler intended to attack Russia, and would have done so no matter who else he was at war with.
It is also noteworthy that Japan and Russia had fought in 1938 over Mongolia, and that Soviet troops were tied down until 1942 in the Far East. It was the American drive in the Pacific that reduced the Japanese threat to Russia. One can ask how effective Japan would have been against the Red Army, but the "beyond the Urals" strategy would probably not have been so effective for Stalin.
Click to expand...
All very true but you are overlooking one fact, Churchill was not trusted by the majority of the Conservative Party or the establishment. Neville Chamberlain must be given the credit of backing Churchill against Lord Halifax who was the choice of most of the party. Churchills consolidation of power tool place before Dunkirk and the French surrender.
I am not saying that a lot of what I said might have happened, but the simple fact of Churchills survival was a unrecognized turning point in the war!
 
Barbaria1 said:
Hitler’s vacillating strategies would have still been a problem, though, don’t you think. As I understand it from a history course I took, the Germans failed miserably when it came to good intelligence work and identifying clear war-winning objectives.
Click to expand...
Oh, absolutely' The failure to go hell bent for Moscow, was a huge mistake, second only to leaving a unbeaten but unbowed England in his rear..
Apostate said:
I sure as hell recognized it. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Few are aware of the importance Churchills struggles to get and keep control of the government jn may 1940.
 
On this day in 1937, the company that would become Volkswagen was founded in Germany; it was part of Hitler's goal to give German people personal automobiles. (Volkswagen translates to "the people's car.") During WWII, its factory helped produce war vehicles, using forced laborers who were ultimately freed by U.S. troops. Moving forward from its dark history, the company became the largest car manufacturer in Europe.
Anyone own an original 1938 Kraft durch Freude-Wagen
1590709285015.png
 
Praefectus Praetorio said:
On this day in 1937, the company that would become Volkswagen was founded in Germany; it was part of Hitler's goal to give German people personal automobiles. (Volkswagen translates to "the people's car.") During WWII, its factory helped produce war vehicles, using forced laborers who were ultimately freed by U.S. troops. Moving forward from its dark history, the company became the largest car manufacturer in Europe.
Anyone own an original 1938 Kraft durch Freude-Wagen
View attachment 864191
Click to expand...

And without great change they were still common on Sydney streets 40 years later, and still made in Brazil until when? 80s? 90s? Pretty successful car. The modern re-imagining is like the modern Mini, not the same thing at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom